Law The Search For The 115th Supreme Court Justice: Justice Amy Coney Barrett Swearing-In Ceremony

I honestly don't think so but you can feel free to call that a partisan opinion.

hiya Seano,

oh, i won't call you partisan. anyone who grows an herb plant in their backyard (hidden, of course, by tomato plants) is okie dokie with me.

i just think you're being a little generous in your conclusion.

to me, its very easy to picture a firebrand GOP POTUS (imagine, for example, if someone like Donald Trump became president) doing that very thing in response.

- IGIT
 
Yeah it's a stupid answer that is typical knee jerk nonsense from the left.
Basically it'd make the court incapable of discussions and would make almost no rulings. 9 can discuss something. 15 much less so

Senate has 100 members and can reach a consensus, 15 isnt a big number, its the same number as the supreme court of Germany.

Things that could depoliticize the court system

1.- Mandatory retirement age at 75 years old

2.- Term limits (18 years)

3.- Expand the court to 15, use it an staggered system, 1 justice every three years starting at the third year of a presidential year. This system will ensure that at minimum every presidential term will get 1 SCOTUS nomination.

4.- Secret voting (so that Senators arent pressured to vote according to party lines).

5.- 3/5thss of votes needed to confirm.

6.- Senate vote must happen 1 month after nomination.

7.- If the Senate refuses the President nominees for three times in a row then the Senate must redact a list of 3 candidates of their own with 3/5ths of the votes, the President chooses 1 from the lists or vetoes it. If the President vetoes the list then the SCOTUS will choose its replacement itself with 3/5ths of the votes.
 
How can I answer a hypothetical that has no basis in reality, particularly when you won't explain how you arrived at it in the first place
I'm just genuinely curious if you believe that dems would push their candidate or if they'd wait to give republicans a "fair chance." You seem to not want to give your opinion, for some reason.
 
I'm just genuinely curious if you believe that dems would push their candidate or if they'd wait to give republicans a "fair chance." You seem to not want to give your opinion, for some reason.
And by "push" you mean follow the same procedures and tactics which Mitch McConnell used, correct?
 
And by "push" you mean follow the same procedures and tactics which Mitch McConnell used, correct?
OK, I get it. you can't answer because you know your answer will be a lie or will contradict your outrage.
 
OK, I get it. you can't answer because you know your answer will be a lie or will contradict your outrage.
Well you've asked me multiple times to answer a hypothetical -hypothetical- which is completely irrelevant given the march of reality we currently sit in. My only conclusion, since you don't seem to want to explain how you arrived there (precedent) or why it's relevant, is that you're trying to weight said hypothetical against the actual events which transpired, comparing them equally and thereby offering justification. So by getting me to say the Democrats would or would not do the same thing, you are potentially absolved of supporting the hyper partisan shit show Mitch McConnell has been putting our Senate and Supreme Court through. "Both sides would do the same thing, so it's all a wash, enjoy your loss" type stuff. And that's fine, this is the internet after all, but you should at least come out and admit it lmao.
 
How can I answer a hypothetical that has no basis in reality, particularly when you won't explain how you arrived at it in the first place

You didn't seem to have any problem speculating on SCOTUS ruling against your pet issue.
 
You didn't seem to have any problem speculating on SCOTUS ruling against your pet issue.
Well I have the actual arguments made in court coupled with the history and philosophies of the current SC majority to base my opinions on lol
Pet issue smh
 
Senate has 100 members and can reach a consensus, 15 isnt a big number, its the same number as the supreme court of Germany.

Things that could depoliticize the court system

1.- Mandatory retirement age at 75 years old

2.- Term limits (18 years)

3.- Expand the court to 15, use it an staggered system, 1 justice every three years starting at the third year of a presidential year. This system will ensure that at minimum every presidential term will get 1 SCOTUS nomination.

4.- Secret voting (so that Senators arent pressured to vote according to party lines).

5.- 3/5thss of votes needed to confirm.

6.- Senate vote must happen 1 month after nomination.

7.- If the Senate refuses the President nominees for three times in a row then the Senate must redact a list of 3 candidates of their own with 3/5ths of the votes, the President chooses 1 from the lists or vetoes it. If the President vetoes the list then the SCOTUS will choose its replacement itself with 3/5ths of the votes.
Problem is that legislation is different from a court decision. There is a graet deal of debate that is legal and is written down in a summary of that they think about the situation. Having too many judges makes the process inefficient and probably will detract from the ruling quality.
 
Problem is that legislation is different from a court decision

Yeah, but its not going to be 100 justices.

Also having 15 justices doesnt means all of them must be present, which is another advantage of the court, that it can have a higher workload.
 
Yeah, but its not going to be 100 justices.

Also having 15 justices doesnt means all of them must be present, which is another advantage of the court, that it can have a higher workload.
Would there be teams then? There is a diminishing return on efficiency when you have more and more people in a group making a consensus
 
Do you believe democrats would have waited to see if Trump won the election rather than push through a liberal judge?

They already did that when Obama was leaving office and was trying to appoint Merrick Garland. So yes, they did allow the GOP to cockblock.
 
They already did that when Obama was leaving office and was trying to appoint Merrick Garland. So yes, they did allow the GOP to cockblock.
I know, its funny to see them pretend that everyone has just forgotten that and refuse to respond about it.
 
I know, its funny to see them pretend that everyone has just forgotten that and refuse to respond about it.

How can ANYONE forget when we had nearly a thousand pages of Kavanaugh being branded a gang-rapist and dragged through the broken glass for his crime of stealing Garland's seat, which Gorsuch already stole the year before?
 
Would there be teams then? There is a diminishing return on efficiency when you have more and more people in a group making a consensus

There is less pressure for justices to be present in every single ruling
 
Well you've asked me multiple times to answer a hypothetical -hypothetical- which is completely irrelevant given the march of reality we currently sit in. My only conclusion, since you don't seem to want to explain how you arrived there (precedent) or why it's relevant, is that you're trying to weight said hypothetical against the actual events which transpired, comparing them equally and thereby offering justification. So by getting me to say the Democrats would or would not do the same thing, you are potentially absolved of supporting the hyper partisan shit show Mitch McConnell has been putting our Senate and Supreme Court through. "Both sides would do the same thing, so it's all a wash, enjoy your loss" type stuff. And that's fine, this is the internet after all, but you should at least come out and admit it lmao.

You won't answer because:

You know they would do it.
You know you would support it.
You know you're a hypocrite.

Simple really.
 
Poor Hollywood. The Executive office is "not their President", and now the Supreme Court "does not represents" them either. :(

Hollywood condemns Amy Coney Barrett confirmation: ‘6-3 doesn’t represent me’
By CHRISTI CARRAS | OCT. 27, 2020

Hollywood has some objections to Amy Coney Barrett’s confirmation as the next Supreme Court justice.

In a controversial move, the majority-Republican Senate appointed Barrett to the high court Monday in the week leading up to the presidential election. Despite Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s dying wish for the newly elected president to name her replacement, the GOP filled her seat in a highly partisan vote that drew zero support from Democrats for the first time since the mid-1800s.

Among the many who expressed outrage online as Barrett was sworn in were Samuel L. Jackson, Kumail Nanjiani, Brie Larson, Roxane Gay, George Lopez, Billy Eichner, Natasha Rothwell, Julia Louis-Dreyfus, Rachel Zegler, Paul Bettany and Toni Braxton.

Jimmy Kimmel roasted Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky during his latest “Jimmy Kimmel Live” monologue.

“The main event in Washington today was the confirmation of Judge Amy Coney Barrett, who is America’s next top Supreme Court justice, tilting the balance of the court even heavier to the right,” the comedian said Monday. “Mitch McConnell rushed this one through faster than his morning Dulcolax kicks in.

“Republicans made a big power grab before an election that could very well wipe out their majority in the Senate. Usually when this many white people get together for one last heist, it’s an '[Ocean’s] Eleven’ movie.”

Several celebrities reacted to the news by urging Americans to vote — in person, if possible, to avoid any mail trouble — in key battleground regions and donate to help “flip red states blue.”

And Jackson, Louis-Dreyfus, Zegler, Nanjiani, Bettany, Braxton and more performers adopted the mnemonic phrase “6-3 doesn’t represent me” to condemn the the imbalance imparted by Barrett’s appointment.

“IMPORTANT,” actor and producer Nanjiani wrote. “No matter where you live, if your mail in ballot arrives after Nov 3rd, assume it won’t be counted. YOU MUST DROP YOUR MAIL IN BALLOT IN A DROP BOX SOON AS YOU CAN OR VOTE IN PERSON. Especially PA, WI, NC. But everywhere else too. If you must mail it in, do it NOW!”

Many also indicated that they were not impressed with Barrett’s qualifications — or perceived lack thereof. As noted by “Insecure” star Rothwell and others, the newest Supreme Court justice has “never tried a case” in her career.

“Who knew you could make it to the Supreme Court without ever trying a case and being a judge for only three years,” author Gay tweeted about Barrett, who began serving as a judge in 2017. “White women finally get to fail upward too!”

Here’s a sampling of celebrity sentiment surrounding Barrett’s divisive confirmation.







https://www.latimes.com/entertainme...tion-supreme-court-celebrity-tweets?_amp=true
 
Last edited:
Guaranteed no one knows anything about her past, just that she got appointed by orange man.
 
Guaranteed no one knows anything about her past, just that she got appointed by orange man.
People were crying about her only being a judge for 3 years but quietly disappeared once it was pointed out that Kagan had never been a judge period before she was nominated.
 
Back
Top